Ut Kinesis Pictura…
THE TRANSDISCIPLINARY STRATEGIES OF JOSÉ ANTONIO OCHOA
I must acknowledge that dedicating a significant part of my academic university activity—both teaching and research, philosophical and historical—for half a century to the study and monitoring of artistic endeavors, especially within the Valencian context, has allowed me—as an art critic and active member of numerous juries—to gradually and sequentially discover the emergence of certain talents, singular promises, and personal values linked to fine arts throughout this lengthy journey. These talents have emerged either directly from the local artistic field or, in other cases, have been incorporated into the academic offering of Valencian university centers from diverse geographical contexts for various reasons.
Undoubtedly, with this introductory justification, I aim to highlight one of the most unique and outstanding cases, for me, within this process of continuous self-learning and critical revelation experienced over decades.
This involves, truthfully, the conscious engagement, in successive cycles, with both the pictorial works of José Antonio Ochoa (Mexico City, 1990) and his reflective, open, and dedicated personality. As I have stated, these encounters have always occurred through his artistic proposals, in that crucial comparative process that begins with selection in a competition, continues through collective deliberation, and culminates in the pertinent collegial decision for awards or official recognition.
If I am to exercise a sort of retrospective memory about this case, I would begin by saying that what first caught my attention was the evident interdisciplinarity underlying his work.
From the start of this journey—perhaps a decade ago, more or less—I encountered a foundational dialogue in each of his pictorial options, involving photography, film, and painting. The sequence of this transdisciplinary intersection—turned into the cornerstone of his dynamic and unsettling “poetics”—may shift strategically. Sometimes, painting emerges as the final and definitive receptacle of the chain of experiences, following the omnipresent and obligatory photographic stage, which itself is genetically inscribed into the cinematic action. Conversely, the pictorial filter may sometimes serve as the regulatory lens, guiding the selective inclusion of visual phenomena historically rooted in the cinematic universe and its parallel photographic resources.
Not coincidentally, my own visual preferences, stemming from cinema (my doctoral thesis at the UVEG in 1969-70 focused on cinematic semiotics), later transformed recurrently into a growing interest in the study and monitoring of the visual arts. This was solidified in my teaching career, dedicated to cultivating aesthetics and art theory.
Soon, I was able to easily identify his paintings among the range of projects presented in various competitions. The evident interconnection in the development of his proposals between the theoretical (reflective and preparatory) dimension of his work and its rigorous practical aspect (carefully crafted techniques subjected to constant pictorial experimentation) made it clear that his “poetics”—a synthesis of regulatory concept, structured program, and postulated ideal—embodied the essential and required keys for a promising trajectory.
Over the past decade, I have not stopped following the gradual progression of his confident process. His unique ability to make cinema a lever—playful or agonizing, expressive or narrative—of his artistic resources has always fascinated me. Moreover, as his pictorial language developed with constructive solidity, it became evident that he had already defined the essential aesthetic categories, seamlessly intertwined with a cinephile’s perceptive tools and the habitual use of photographic strategies as a personal vade mecum.
This is precisely where his current predilection for the sublime arises—anchored in interpreted nature, landscapes, and the infinite realms of romantic reverie that continue to accumulate symbolic and literary appeal within the history of images. Indeed, images do not exist without the context of prior images, their history, interdisciplinary connections, or the nearly inexhaustible insights offered by viewers, who shape, contribute to, and amplify the visual, literary, and artistic universes through recurring connections.
I conclude that José Antonio Ochoa’s painting, despite its complexity, appears surprisingly simple in its array of transdisciplinary resources. Yet, its true intricacy lies in how the work adapts to the observer’s gaze, projecting more and more interpretative threads based on the viewer’s responses, making them an active participant in the perceptual and imaginative process.
By delegating interests and engaging the observer’s gaze, Ochoa showcases his own interdisciplinary exploration, weaving his journey from urban spaces to museums and cinemas, reflecting upon his practice with contagious passion.
Today, it is about putting painting at the service of the clouds, just as his previous works explored landscapes or the subtle expressions of faces. Regardless of the subject, the formula remains perpetually adaptable and creatively unyielding. Ut Kinesis Pictura…
Román de la Calle
Valencia, March 26, 2021